The Atlantic magazine looks at the Russian space programme today

The Atlantic's 'In Focus' photo blog has collected a fascinating series of images from the Russian space program. Looking at both Zvyozdny gorodok, the training center just outside Moscow better known as 'Star City,' as well as the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, the pictures give an insight into post-Shuttle space flight. Astronauts and scientists from different countries train together, as do entrepreneurs preparing for their paid trips into space. The collection uses a variety of photographic styles and beautifully conveys the faded futurism of space travel. (from The Atlantic)

Not just a railroad track, but the point is there is absolutely NO comparison to a Saturn V moon rocket and anything the Russians have ever built. You couldn't get the Saturns or Shuttles out to the pad via a railroad track. Think 5+Million pounds. Besides, the crawlers were very, very cost effective!

@ Paul, I could say how more advanced Buran was vs. the Shuttle. You could say how it only had one flight and the program had gone nowhere. We'd both be right.

If you look at a lot of the Russian projects and inventions, be it the Cola borehole or the Antarctic station, they place extra value on big dreams and big things, even without much consideration to commercial drivers. By contrast the Americans, who are at least as (and often better) at executing complex scientific and technological projects, would not just get up and do it full-on without a commercial driver. You just won't get the funding. You know where Saturn 5 would be without the Sputnik and Laika and Gagarin and Leonov and the first moon impact and the first photo on the back side on the moon (Russian achievements). Saturn 5 would still be on a drawing board.

So the Americans and the Russians can't really go far without each others. You need both the Russian "Let's go!" and the American financial wisdom to keep going.

Is anybody else surprised at how steady the platform is in the space-based photos like the second one above? I would expect vibration from pumps and motors, thermal expansion or contraction, etc. ISS thing is not connected to the ground or anything else to damp out vibration.

Mmm, mass doesn't automatically mean no vibration. If you hang a massive steel girder in midair and rap it, it still vibrates. Also, the thing isn't isn't a monolith. It is constructed in sections which may be able to vibrate semi-independently. Also, now that I think of it, you would get shocks passing through the structure from things bumping together.

Probably the simplest answer is that the camera is on some kind of vibration-dampening mount. Maybe it isn't necessary, but if I were them, I'd use one.

Nice images. I respect that international space programs have been the global uniting force since the end of the cold war. We should pursue that aspect more fervently with as many countries willing to put forth the effort. And while I'm not much in to hero-worship, Astronauts are pretty much top 'o the line for me.

What monetary or political incentive would inspire China (or any other country) to send people into space? Even if asteroids were solid gold, the cost to retrieve by robot would exceed the value. Human cargo merely multiplies^5 the costs and risks.

A fast coastal train service, even if unprofitable, might be a better achievement to brag about. Rockets that light skies on New Year's are probably spatial achievement enough. Government grants for science and math studies would do more to boost technology than diverting existing engineers from economical applications to sending suicide probes to empty voids.

Either outsource your defense and space program to private contractors, who's sole purpose of existence is to extract as much money doing as little as possible for as long as possible (i.e. profit), or do it in house with direct employees as Russians do for 1/100 of the money. Simple.

Russia's launch technologies and infrastructure are a vestige of the Cold War, when the cost accounting was a state secret. Russia might recoup a little by launching commercial satellites, but never a fraction of the sunk costs. Elsewhere, the "private initiative" ventures into space launches rely an awful lot on physical or human capital furnished or discarded by state-sponsored ventures.

The annual budget for NASA is 17 billion dollars, which is 0.4% of the US federal budget. Cutting the space program won't save you any money and will cost you in the long run. On the other hand, the budget for the US DOD is 700 billion dollars. Cut half of the aircraft carriers, shut down half of the overseas military bases, and then you might start to make a dent in that debt.

So true. To some extent I place blame with NASA. They are not the people of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo gun ho generation. Bureaucrats and "A" kissers who presided over the demise of our space program. You only miss it when it's gone. The abandonment of the space capsule say's it all.

Come on, Paul, you can't rationally blame Obama. Bush threw Mars into a speech or two, but he did little to advance the mission. And if we care about advancing knowledge, we can get much more science for any amount of money by sending unmanned probes into space than by sending humans. Sending a human to Mars would just be a stunt.

Yeah, Newt and W said we should set up a "Man to Mars" program. They would support enough funding to circulate some PR to fool Florida, Texas, and CA voters. But no one wants to pay the full price. And no sane human would want to be imprisoned in a space-can for four years, as gamma rays fry the brain, for the sake of a stroll on a desert waste. Natural Arches National Park is a much more scenic, hospitible, and affordable way to see "Mars" close up. It even has some life. Gas at $4 / gallon is a lot less expensive than the tons of liquid hydrogen and whatnot it takes to leave earth's gravitation.

I am confused by those who blame government for being the cause of all problems, and then bemoan the loss of government support for the space program. Aside from that being serious cognitive dissonance, it seems like the ideal anti-government solution for space travel is to get it out of government and into private space companies.

Which is exactly what is happening right now.

Anti-government types should be rejoicing. If the government had chosen to ban private space travel, nationalize all private spacecraft companies, and dramatically increase public spending on the space program, then I *might* decide to listen to some of the more radically unfounded claims about the state of the nation.